What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Orthodoxy does not view Judaism as a false religion. We see ourselves as the fulfillment of Judaism. If not for the OT, how would we know that Jesus is who he says he is? Lots of people today claim to be God or the second coming of Christ or whoever. If not for the prophets and everythign written in the OT, there really is no basis for us to know that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

Judaism isn't false. Although today they are not THE true faith because the fulfillment of their faith has come in Christ. That does not make them false, perhaps "incomplete" would be a better word to use.

Which Judaism are we talking? Because I'm staunchly convinced that modern-day Judaism--at least the Reformed and Conservative sects--is not the same Judaism as the Judaism during the time of the Old Testament. Finding a direct continuation of Judaism after the time of Christ is actually very confusing and complex, seeing the various sects that it branched off into.

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.

Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

It's embarrassing to have to re-iterate this, but applying your own standard of regarding only the Pauline corpus as authoritative, how do you exegete 2 Timothy 3:16, bearing in mind the context that the 'scriptures' spoken of could not possibly have referred to the Gospels, let alone St. Paul's letters which were still being written?

Not sure of your religious affiliation, but if you are inquiring into Orthodoxy, you will have to make peace with the religion of the Prophets and the idea of the O.T. as sacred scripture. The patristic exegesis of the O.T. is predicated on the idea that the Theophanies therein were the appearance of the Pre-incarnate Christ. For instance:

Quote

“Moses, therefore, that blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that the one who was seen by Abraham at the oak of Mamre was God, ac­companied by two angels, who were sent, for the condemnation of Sodom, by another, namely by the One who always remains above the heavens, who has never been seen by any human being, and who of himself holds converse with none, whom we term the Creator of all things, and the Father”.

Which Judaism are we talking? Because I'm staunchly convinced that modern-day Judaism--at least the Reformed and Conservative sects--is not the same Judaism as the Judaism during the time of the Old Testament. Finding a direct continuation of Judaism after the time of Christ is actually very confusing and complex, seeing the various sects that it branched off into.

Perhaps. But the same accusation is being hurled against Christians, that is why some Protestant groups try to guess what First Century worship is like and claim to conform to it. Even Orthodoxy has gone through a lot of development and an outsider may not accept our claim that we have preserved the essential elements faithfully.

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.

Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

What type of Christian do you consider yourself? I am genuinely curious, not at all being sarcastic. Just like, what denomination do you consider your faith?

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Maybe you should just join the Marcionites.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.

Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

Were you baptized by the History Channel?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Back to the question,The Old Testament to me is as important to me as the NT is as they both include valuable interlocking connections about the messiah and the story and history of the NT,which make the overall understanding of the bible as a whole more fulfilling.

The *nature* of the OT writings is, of course, another question, but Christ Himself is the key to many of the questions we ask about the canonicity of the proto-canon and some of the deuterocanon of the Old Testament long before the early fathers presumed upon the question; the latter did not diverge at all from the teachings of Christ as reported in the New Testament documents as e.g. Marcion the heretic and others did (not before mid second century).

Frequently we find on the lips of Jesus the phrase “it stands written”; it is multiply attested and occurs in parallel passages of the earliest New Testament sources; it indicates that appeal to scripture formed a central characteristic of his ministry. Jesus’ view of what for him constituted Old Testament scripture presupposes the New Testament attestation to Jesus’ view of the OT is reliable; it is not necessary to assume the New Testament as scripture to establish Jesus’ view of the Old Testament.

Jesus’ high view of scripture is evidenced throughout the Gospels, e.g.:Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”; Matthew 22:29: “But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God’”; Jn 10:35: “the scripture cannot be broken”; Luke 24:44-45: all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” is a post-resurrection pericope which clearly reflects the central message of the earliest Christian kerygma, which can be firmly established within a very short period after the resurrection on firm historical-critical grounds. These are just selected examples.

Shorthand for the OT in early Judaism and Christianity: Law and the Prophets; Law, Writings and Prophets; Law, Writings, Prophets and Psalms.“The Law and the Prophets”: The earliest division of the OT was a twofold division known as the Law and the Prophets. This terminology goes back to the OT itself: “Law of Moses” (Dan 9:11, 13); “prophets” (Dan 9:6); The Law of Moses as “Thy Law” (Neh 9:29); God also “admonished them by Thy Spirit through Thy prophets” (Neh 9:30); “the law and …the former prophets” (Zech 7:12); “the law and the prophets” (2 Macc 15:9); “law and the prophets” (Manual of Discipline I.3; VIII.15; IX.11).

A twofold division of the Law and the Prophets was spoken of by Jesus (e.g. Matt 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Lk 16:16, 29, 31; 24:27; Acts 13:15; 26:22). A two-fold division is multiply attested in ancient Judaism. The “Law and the Prophets” (Mt 5:17; Lk 16:16), referred to as “all the scriptures” (Lk 24:27) were said to contain “everything written” about Christ (Lk 24:44). “All the Scriptures” (e.g. Lk 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures”). Josephus lists 24 books of the OT (Against Apion I. and refers there the two-fold division of the Law and the Prophets. Paul said he believed “everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets” (Acts 24:14; cf. 26:22). Portions of the OT later classified as “Writings” by the Talmud (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel) were earlier included within the two-fold division “Law and Prophets” (cf. Matt 24:15; Lk 4:8-11; Jn 10:34; 1 Cor 3:19). There are also NT references to parts of the Deuterocanon (which topic I will leave aside for another thread); the entirety of the DC not yet having been completed.

Other Divisions of the OT canon: threefold and fourfold schematic divisions are attested after the twofold division scheme; the contents of the OT canon are unaffected by this division. Threefold Division: “prophets” divided into “the prophets and the writings” giving the threefold Law (Torah), Prophets (Nebhiim), and Writings (Kethubhim). The Fourfold scheme is reflected in the LXX: Law, History, Poetry, and Prophecy; Jerome’s Vulgate and English translations of the Bible follow this arrangement. Philo spoke of “the laws and oracles delivered through the mouth of the prophets, and psalms, and anything else which fosters perfect knowledge and piety” (De Vita Contemplativa III.25). Luke presents Jesus as saying “everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Lk 24:44).

An attempt to present the historical Jesus, who all contemporary scholars regard as *Jewish* -as at radically at odds with the Old Testament, is not really credible on even radical premises of historical critical reconstruction given the nature and mulitiplicity of attestation. Any attempt to suppose Paul held such a view is completley out of the question. Any notion of Orthodox Christianity without an Old Testament canon is also completely out of the question; the same is true of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. At best we are on the extreme fringe -with reasonable warrant well beyond what we might reasonably call Christendom and haunted by some of the more infamous heretics of old on such a hypothesis of excising the Old Testament from the Christian faith.

Did the Council of Jamnia really happen, or is it false? I've seen several pre-21st century sources stating that it happened, whereas now in modern times, it seems like several sources are stating that it never happened, or accuse it of being an "anti-Semitic" conspiracy etc. Is this true? Or just revisionist lies propogated by Reformed pork-eating Jews?

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Did the Council of Jamnia really happen, or is it false? I've seen several pre-21st century sources stating that it happened, whereas now in modern times, it seems like several sources are stating that it never happened, or accuse it of being an "anti-Semitic" conspiracy etc. Is this true? Or just revisionist lies propogated by Reformed pork-eating Jews?

OT books were definitely discussed at Jamnia; the older claim that the canon was "officially closed" at an "official council" there, however, is unconfirmed and no longer in favor. There are arguments still offered in favor of it, but they are inductive, e.g.

Quote from: Albert Sundberg

Cross has offered what appears to be incontrovertible evidence that the Pharisaic canon was not closed until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. His proposal concerning the process of canonization, however, has exchanged the question of place for the question of parties in the formation of the canon. What, however, should be the answer if we would ask for the venue of Cross' proposal? Are there alternatives to Jamnia (or later Usha)? As we have seen, it was at Jamnia that the tradition says the Hillelites gained the ascendancy over the house of Shammai. It was the school at Jamnia that became a substitute for the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. It was at Jamnia that the third section of the Hebrew canon was first named. It was the Jamnia decisions that, while not "official," came to be generally accepted in post-destruction Judaism. It may be that we have followed too quickly after Lewis in his attack upon Jamnia in order to foster his belief in a Hebrew canon from pre-Christian times. But that case, as we have seen, is confounded by numerous difficulties. With the time of canonization of the Hebrew tripartite canon now probably fixed between 70 and 135 C.E., and as a triumph of the Hillelite Pharisee in post-destruction Judaism, what alternatives are there to Jamnia as the venue? (Albert Sundberg, in T. Sienkewicz and J. Betts, eds., Festschrift in Honor of Charles Speel (Monmouth, 1997).

This is exactly so also, Shanghaiski. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either and the lack of definitive evidence is a sword that should cut both ways. Unproven cannot simply be taken for disproven without presuming something unproven as an axiom.

And even beyond all that -for another thread perhaps- Enlightenment-style foundationalist rationalism is itself dead in the waters; there is nothing more naive today than the notion that one must not, or does not continually, hold things without provability at very fundamental levels, even the whole methodological edifice of the prover. Metaphysics buries its gravediggers, and we Orthodox understand there are some things, like God, and what scripture is meant to convey, that cannot be known apart from love.

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.

Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

The *nature* of the OT writings is, of course, another question, but Christ Himself is the key to many of the questions we ask about the canonicity of the proto-canon and some of the deuterocanon of the Old Testament long before the early fathers presumed upon the question; the latter did not diverge at all from the teachings of Christ as reported in the New Testament documents as e.g. Marcion the heretic and others did (not before mid second century).

Frequently we find on the lips of Jesus the phrase “it stands written”; it is multiply attested and occurs in parallel passages of the earliest New Testament sources; it indicates that appeal to scripture formed a central characteristic of his ministry. Jesus’ view of what for him constituted Old Testament scripture presupposes the New Testament attestation to Jesus’ view of the OT is reliable; it is not necessary to assume the New Testament as scripture to establish Jesus’ view of the Old Testament.

Jesus’ high view of scripture is evidenced throughout the Gospels, e.g.:Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”; Matthew 22:29: “But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God’”; Jn 10:35: “the scripture cannot be broken”; Luke 24:44-45: all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” is a post-resurrection pericope which clearly reflects the central message of the earliest Christian kerygma, which can be firmly established within a very short period after the resurrection on firm historical-critical grounds. These are just selected examples.

Shorthand for the OT in early Judaism and Christianity: Law and the Prophets; Law, Writings and Prophets; Law, Writings, Prophets and Psalms.“The Law and the Prophets”: The earliest division of the OT was a twofold division known as the Law and the Prophets. This terminology goes back to the OT itself: “Law of Moses” (Dan 9:11, 13); “prophets” (Dan 9:6); The Law of Moses as “Thy Law” (Neh 9:29); God also “admonished them by Thy Spirit through Thy prophets” (Neh 9:30); “the law and …the former prophets” (Zech 7:12); “the law and the prophets” (2 Macc 15:9); “law and the prophets” (Manual of Discipline I.3; VIII.15; IX.11).

A twofold division of the Law and the Prophets was spoken of by Jesus (e.g. Matt 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Lk 16:16, 29, 31; 24:27; Acts 13:15; 26:22). A two-fold division is multiply attested in ancient Judaism. The “Law and the Prophets” (Mt 5:17; Lk 16:16), referred to as “all the scriptures” (Lk 24:27) were said to contain “everything written” about Christ (Lk 24:44). “All the Scriptures” (e.g. Lk 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures”). Josephus lists 24 books of the OT (Against Apion I. and refers there the two-fold division of the Law and the Prophets. Paul said he believed “everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets” (Acts 24:14; cf. 26:22). Portions of the OT later classified as “Writings” by the Talmud (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel) were earlier included within the two-fold division “Law and Prophets” (cf. Matt 24:15; Lk 4:8-11; Jn 10:34; 1 Cor 3:19). There are also NT references to parts of the Deuterocanon (which topic I will leave aside for another thread); the entirety of the DC not yet having been completed.

Other Divisions of the OT canon: threefold and fourfold schematic divisions are attested after the twofold division scheme; the contents of the OT canon are unaffected by this division. Threefold Division: “prophets” divided into “the prophets and the writings” giving the threefold Law (Torah), Prophets (Nebhiim), and Writings (Kethubhim). The Fourfold scheme is reflected in the LXX: Law, History, Poetry, and Prophecy; Jerome’s Vulgate and English translations of the Bible follow this arrangement. Philo spoke of “the laws and oracles delivered through the mouth of the prophets, and psalms, and anything else which fosters perfect knowledge and piety” (De Vita Contemplativa III.25). Luke presents Jesus as saying “everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Lk 24:44).

An attempt to present the historical Jesus, who all contemporary scholars regard as *Jewish* -as at radically at odds with the Old Testament, is not really credible on even radical premises of historical critical reconstruction given the nature and mulitiplicity of attestation. Any attempt to suppose Paul held such a view is completley out of the question. Any notion of Orthodox Christianity without an Old Testament canon is also completely out of the question; the same is true of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. At best we are on the extreme fringe -with reasonable warrant well beyond what we might reasonably call Christendom and haunted by some of the more infamous heretics of old on such a hypothesis of excising the Old Testament from the Christian faith.

This is exactly so also, Shanghaiski. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either and the lack of definitive evidence is a sword that should cut both ways. Unproven cannot simply be taken for disproven without presuming something unproven as an axiom.

And even beyond all that -for another thread perhaps- Enlightenment-style foundationalist rationalism is itself dead in the waters; there is nothing more naive today than the notion that one must not, or does not continually, hold things without provability at very fundamental levels, even the whole methodological edifice of the prover. Metaphysics buries its gravediggers, and we Orthodox understand there are some things, like God, and what scripture is meant to convey, that cannot be known apart from love.

The whole lack of evidence for canon per council is a non-starter for me. There is no canon as such cause it never rose to such a degree of disagreement that it warranted one.

The Enlightenment gets a bad a rap. And I am one to pile on, but often for different reasons. I just don't think even someone thoroughly rooted in a foundationalist hermeneutic would require some string of authoritative witnesses to establish the legitimacy of the canon(s). A glance at the reasons for the councils and the evidence of silence on the issue of canonicity seems persuasive enough to set the argument aside.

Other problems of the canons might be interesting to pursue and I wonder if some specialized such research isn't yanked out of context to create such popular arguments as seen above. I really don't know anything about the state of research on the development of the canon(s) of Scripture and where the problems of interest lie, nor do I really care.

I just don't think even someone thoroughly rooted in a foundationalist hermeneutic would require some string of authoritative witnesses to establish the legitimacy of the canon(s). A glance at the reasons for the councils and the evidence of silence on the issue of canonicity seems persuasive enough to set the argument aside.

Other problems of the canons might be interesting to pursue and I wonder if some specialized such research isn't yanked out of context to create such popular arguments as seen above. I really don't know anything about the state of research on the development of the canon(s) of Scripture and where the problems of interest lie, nor do I really care.

NT scripture was used qua scripture before there was an "official canon" -for a few centuries in fact (the first "official list" actually came from a heretic, Marcion). This is also what we see regarding OT writings for an even longer period. As with many things NT scripture qua scripture is rooted in the living faith and practice of a vibrant community.[1] With eschewing a foundationalist hermeneutic for NT canon I agree with you, though we do continue to see a foundationalist current within Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (natural theology, natural law, and papal infallibility being the clearest examples of the latter; F. F. Bruce's "self attesting" scriptures being an example of the former). I do, however, think of Christ's view of the OT as foundational for the patristic understanding of the Old Testament (as argued above), and the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church as "foundational" (not in the sense of classical epistemological foundationalism) for the latter, albeit I think this is not a matter that can be understood strictly on the horizontal level of reason (or "faith" in the sense it was re-interpreted in medieval nominalism for that matter).

The notion of some later Magisterial pronouncement/canonical pronouncement "creating" scripture via some sort of horizontal authority in Judaism or Christianity is something I regard as a myth. This myth is seen in both proponents and opponents of Christianity (Bart Ehrman being by his own admission an example of the latter).___________[1] Using the function of NT documents as scripture before canon as an example, “Statistical studies of the frequency of citation (relative to length) of early Christian writings demonstrates that from the second century onward, the Gospels, and the principal Pauline letters were cited with very high frequency, that the other books eventually included in the canon were much less often called into service, and that books ultimately excluded from the canon were used very little (Stuhlhofer, Der Gebrauch der Bibel von Jesus bis Euseb: Eine statistisch Untersuchung zur Kanongeschichte (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1988)… Thus the NT canon that finally took shape appears fairly to reflect which writings had in the earlier period consistently claimed the attention of the church and proven most useful in sustaining and nurturing the faith and life of the Christian communities. To this extent the canonization of early Christian writings did not so much confer authority on them as recognize or ratify an authority that they had long enjoyed, making regulative what had previously been customary. The catalogs of the fourth and fifth centuries are for the most part articulations of a consensus of usage that had arisen through the practices of the preceding centuries, and they are aimed to exclude rather than to include” (H. Gamble, “Canonical Formation in the New Testament” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000), p. 192).

I just don't think even someone thoroughly rooted in a foundationalist hermeneutic would require some string of authoritative witnesses to establish the legitimacy of the canon(s). A glance at the reasons for the councils and the evidence of silence on the issue of canonicity seems persuasive enough to set the argument aside.

Other problems of the canons might be interesting to pursue and I wonder if some specialized such research isn't yanked out of context to create such popular arguments as seen above. I really don't know anything about the state of research on the development of the canon(s) of Scripture and where the problems of interest lie, nor do I really care.

NT scripture was used qua scripture before there was an "official canon" -for a few centuries in fact (the first "official list" actually came from a heretic, Marcion). This is also what we see regarding OT writings for an even longer period. As with many things NT scripture qua scripture is rooted in the living faith and practice of a vibrant community.[1] With eschewing a foundationalist hermeneutic for NT canon I agree with you, though we do continue to see a foundationalist current within Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (natural theology, natural law, and papal infallibility being the clearest examples of the latter; F. F. Bruce's "self attesting" scriptures being an example of the former). I do, however, think of Christ's view of the OT as foundational for the patristic understanding of the Old Testament (as argued above), and the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church as "foundational" (not in the sense of classical epistemological foundationalism) for the latter, albeit I think this is not a matter that can be understood strictly on the horizontal level of reason (or "faith" in the sense it was re-interpreted in medieval nominalism for that matter).

The notion of some later Magisterial pronouncement/canonical pronouncement "creating" scripture via some sort of horizontal authority in Judaism or Christianity is something I regard as a myth. This myth is seen in both proponents and opponents of Christianity (Bart Ehrman being by his own admission an example of the latter).___________[1] Using the function of NT documents as scripture before canon as an example, “Statistical studies of the frequency of citation (relative to length) of early Christian writings demonstrates that from the second century onward, the Gospels, and the principal Pauline letters were cited with very high frequency, that the other books eventually included in the canon were much less often called into service, and that books ultimately excluded from the canon were used very little (Stuhlhofer, Der Gebrauch der Bibel von Jesus bis Euseb: Eine statistisch Untersuchung zur Kanongeschichte (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1988)… Thus the NT canon that finally took shape appears fairly to reflect which writings had in the earlier period consistently claimed the attention of the church and proven most useful in sustaining and nurturing the faith and life of the Christian communities. To this extent the canonization of early Christian writings did not so much confer authority on them as recognize or ratify an authority that they had long enjoyed, making regulative what had previously been customary. The catalogs of the fourth and fifth centuries are for the most part articulations of a consensus of usage that had arisen through the practices of the preceding centuries, and they are aimed to exclude rather than to include” (H. Gamble, “Canonical Formation in the New Testament” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000), p. 192).

I really like your posts, and not just because you include footnotes, use the word "qua," have an interesting tag and juxtapose intellectuality next to a rollerblader.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism.

It belongs just as much to Christianity as it does modern Judaism. Both go back organically to ancient Judaism. Modern Judaism and Jews cannot claim any unique ownership of the Tanakh either on religious descent (because both religions come directly from it) nor as cultural ownership or biological inheritance (because nearly everyone in Europe and most of Asia has Jewish ancestry whether they are aware of it or not. People don't realize how much people got around in the past.).

Do you mean that Moses was also a false prophet then? He was the founder of Judaism.

You mean if he he ever existed? Well if he did he was a murderer for a start and ultimately yes as a prophet of a religion that is false he certainly is a false prophet. Jews see God in the terms they understand Moses to have revealed himself to Moses, Christians understand God in the terms he revealed himself in Christ. They are two different notions of God one belongs to the realm of myth and fantasy and the other is the true and living God.

Are you even really Christian? You seem to know nothing about Christianity. I'm pretty sure you've just committed an automatic excommunication by rejecting the prophets.

It isn't, at least not Christ as we understand him. Firstly the true Jews (Sadducees) wern't expecting a messiah and rejected the prophets only the fringe theology of the Separatists (Pharisees) looked for a messiah and he was to come as a political liberator and overthrow the Romans. They got it wrong and they missed him when he came, consequently the messiah as seen by the Pharisees does not exist and is not Christ.

Pericles--This is an official request. Please tell us your status in the Church: are you an inquirer, cathechumen or communicant? I would appreciate a prompt answer. Thanks, Carl Kraeff (second Chance)

Other than that I don't know much about planking, but maybe it would be a good use for me.

It's of little use in exercising, of even less use in the youtube sense...

That's true, though I was thinking not of planking's usefulness, but mine.

If you are really into playing parkour, I can't see the incredible merits of practicing planking as such. Really, it has been quite sad to see what has become of parkour as it has been moved from its situationalist beginnings into the world of "sport".